august 2019 - csls.ca · sub-index, and equal weighting to the sub-indices comprising the overall...

CENTRE FOR THE

STUDY OF LIVING

STANDARDS

An Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous

Communities

August 2019

Nicole Johnston and Andrew Sharpe

August 2019

CSLS Research Report 2019-04

Prepared for the National Indigenous Economic Development Board

604-170 Laurier Ave. West

Ottawa, Ontario

K1P 5V5

613-233-8891

[email protected]

ii


Communities

Abstract

This report sheds light on the deficiencies in infrastructure faced by Canada’s remote

Indigenous communities by quantifying the level of infrastructure in 236 remote communities in

Canada’s North. This quantification is done through a composite index based on 13

infrastructure indicators, including availability of broadband, roads, airports, the electrical grid,

health care, education, water, and housing, with values ranging from 0 to 1. This report compares

the level of infrastructure found in remote Indigenous communities both with remote non-

Indigenous northern communities and southern cities. Indigenous communities are broken down

by the three heritage groups: First Nations, Inuit and Métis. While the southern cities identified

in the 2016 Census as Census Metropolitan Areas have an average index score of 0.97, remote

Indigenous communities saw a score of 0.45 and remote non-Indigenous communities a score of

0.82. Inuit communities face the lowest level of infrastructure (an index score of 0.31), and

remote Indigenous communities in Nunavut fared the lowest of the jurisdictions with a score of

0.30.

iii


Communities

Table of Contents

Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... ii

Contents.............................................................................. .......................................................... iii

Executive Summary.............................................................................. ........................................ 1

Introduction.............................................................................. ..................................................... 5

Methodology .............................................................................. ...................................................6

Key Characteristics......................................................................................................................... 6

Methodology of selection of communities .....................................................................................7

Definition of Indigenous communities ...............................................................................7

Selection of communities and geographic coverage............................................................8

Coverage over time............................................................................................................11

Constraints on Infrastructure Related to Community Size and Remoteness.....................12

Methodology of creation of the Index.......................................................................................... 12

Selection of indicators...................................................................................................... 12

Allocation of values ..........................................................................................................15

Weighting of indicators.................................................................................................... 17

Formula .............................................................................................................................18

Weighted averages ............................................................................................................19

Data Sources................................................................................................................................. 20

Data collection methods ...................................................................................................20

Data Sources .....................................................................................................................20

Analysis of the Estimates of the Infrastructure Index for Indigenous Communities ...................23

Results for Canada............................................................................................................ 23

Overall Index........................................................................................................ 23

Sub-Indexes for Economic and Quality of Life Infrastructure .............................25

Components of the Economic Infrastructure Sub-Index ..........................26

Components of the Quality of Life Infrastructure Sub-Index .................28

Heath care infrastructure ..............................................................28

Education infrastructure ...............................................................29

Water Infrastructure ....................................................................29

Housing Infrastructure .................................................................30

Results for the Provinces and Territories..........................................................................30

Overall Index....................................................................................................... 30

Economic versus Quality of Life Infrastructure ..................................................31

Conclusion and Future Work........................................................................................... 32

Key Findings ........................................................................................................32

Future Work .........................................................................................................39

1


Communities

Executive Summary

This report develops an infrastructure index for Canada’s remote Indigenous

communities. Remote communities were identified on the basis of physical geography, climate

and latitude. The basic unit of analysis for the index is the community, with community data

aggregated into sub-provincial/territorial data, provincial/territorial data and national data. Of

these 236 communities, 200 were identified as Indigenous (over 50% of the population

identifying as Aboriginal in Census 2016) and 36 were identified as non-Indigenous. Within

these Indigenous communities, 134 were identified as predominantly First Nations, 17 as Métis,

and 49 as Inuk/Inuit.

The infrastructure index itself was developed using 13 indicators of infrastructure, which

comprised seven types of infrastructure: access to basic broadband, transportation (comprised of

roads, ports/harbors, and airports), access to the electrical grid, health care, education (comprised

of on-site schools and community colleges), water (comprised of water treatment, water

distribution, and water quality), and housing (comprised of housing quantity and housing

quality). These types of infrastructure can be further aggregated to form the two sub-indices of

economic infrastructure and quality of life infrastructure, which then comprise the overall index.

A system of coding was used to rank-order and enumerate the response categories for

each of these infrastructure indicators. This system assigned values from 0 to 1 to each category,

creating a numerical score for each indicator in each community, which could be used to

calculate scores for the seven types of infrastructure, two sub-indices and the overall index.

These calculations used a system of weighting that assigns equal value to each of the sub-

components within the types of infrastructure, equal weighting to each type of infrastructure in a

sub-index, and equal weighting to the sub-indices comprising the overall index.

All data were gathered from open-source documentation, including publically accessible

federal and provincial/territorial government resources. For certain indicators in the territories

and the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, the dataset associated with the

report Study on Addressing the Infrastructure Needs of Northern Aboriginal Communities

developed for the National Aboriginal Economic Development Board by Centre for the North at

the Conference Board of Canada was consulted.

The main focus in the analysis of this report is the gap between the infrastructure in

remote Indigenous communities and that in southern Canada, the benchmark for the overall

infrastructure index, the seven types of infrastructure, and the 13 infrastructure indicators. To

understand this gap, the average infrastructure index score for the 32 communities in southern

Canada identified as Census Metropolitan Areas has been calculated to be 0.97. Comparisons are

also be made between territories and provinces, between Indigenous communities and non-

Indigenous communities in remote areas, and between specific Indigenous heritage groups for

2

the overall infrastructure index, the seven types of infrastructure, and the 13 infrastructure

indicators.

In an analysis of national averages, the report finds that for the 200 Indigenous

communities that have been defined as remote for the purposes of this report, the average

infrastructure index in 2018 (or the latest data available) is 0.45 on a scale from 0 to 1 on an

unweighted basis (i.e. communities of all sizes are treated equally) and 0.47 on a population-

weighted basis. While there is a clear gap present between these remote Indigenous communities

and the benchmark of 0.97, this is not a particularly useful value if not disaggregated as it masks

disparities related to size of community.

As noted, there are significant differences in the infrastructure index between Indigenous

remote communities and non-Indigenous remote communities. On an unweighted basis the index

value for Indigenous communities was 0.37 points lower than for non-Indigenous communities

(0.45 versus 0.82). The gap was even greater on a population-weighted basis, 0.47 points (0.47

versus 0.94).

To explain these results, it is natural to look to community size as a possible explanation

for these infrastructure deficiencies. In small, remote communities with a population of fewer

than 1,000, the feasibility of sustaining a school or hospital may be quite low. While size does

explain some of the difference, it does not account for the entire gap. The unweighted score of

the 11 remote non-Indigenous remote communities with a population under 1,000 (seven of

which are in Yukon) was 0.68, closer to the average for Indigenous communities of the same size

(0.44). Although the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous of this size and remoteness is

smaller than the overall infrastructure gap, it still clearly exists in all provinces and territories

included in this study.

The value of the infrastructure index varies by heritage groups. The 17 Métis

communities in the dataset of remote communities have an unweighted index value of 0.64, the

highest, followed by the 134 First Nations communities at 0.48 and then the 49 Inuit

communities at 0.31.

The comparison of index values between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups can

continue at that sub-index level. Non-Indigenous communities fare nearly the same in both

Economic Infrastructure (0.81) and Quality of Life Infrastructure (0.83). On average, Indigenous

communities demonstrate a similar pattern with Economic Infrastructure scoring 0.48 and

Quality of Life Infrastructure 0.42; however, this is not indicative of the situation for all

Indigenous groups, as seen when the data is disaggregated by heritage group. While this pattern

holds true for First Nations communities (0.56 versus 0.39) and Métis communities (0.78 versus

0.50), Inuit communities see a higher Quality of Life Index than Economic Index (0.14 versus

0.48), due largely to their lack of roads, access to the electricity grid, and access to adequate

broadband.

Among the three components of the Economic Infrastructure sub-index, access to the

energy grid scores the highest with a value of 0.56 for Indigenous communities. While

transportation scores the lowest for Indigenous communities at 0.39, it is important to analyze

the sub-components of this type of infrastructure to understand the causes of this value. The

3

score for transportation infrastructure in Indigenous communities comes from three sub-

components: roads (0.52), water transportation (0.50) and airports (0.22). While Indigenous

communities on average score lowest for access to an on-site airport with regularly scheduled

passenger flights (0.22), so do non-Indigenous communities (0.33). Conversely, non-Indigenous

remote communities score quite well at 0.97 for access to the Canadian National Roads System,

whereas Indigenous communities fall short of this score at only 0.52. The largest disparities for

the sub-component of energy are seen between heritage groups wherein Métis communities score

at 1.00 and Inuit communities score 0.00, with First Nations scoring an average of 0.70.

The quality of life infrastructure sub-index consists of four components: health care,

education, water, and housing. The latter three of these components are in turn made up of sub-

components or indicators. In terms of the four components, the quality of life infrastructure gap

or deficit between remote Indigenous communities and Canadian CMAs (index value of 0.97) is

the least for water (an index value of 0.71), followed by education (0.44), health care (0.39), and

housing (0.16). This pattern is similar for the three heritage groups.

The largest deficit in water infrastructure between Indigenous communities and

benchmark communities in southern Canada is in water distribution, with the former at 0.57,

followed by water treatment (0.61) and water quality (0.94).

In terms of schools, the average score for remote Indigenous communities is 0.67, not too

far behind that for remote non-Indigenous communities (0.93). Not surprisingly, the presence of

or access to communities colleges is limited in remote communities, whether Indigenous or non-

Indigenous. The score for Indigenous communities is 0.20; however, non-Indigenous

communities still fare better with a score of 0.60.

The health care indicator for remote Indigenous communities scored 0.39, less than one

half that of remote non-Indigenous communities (0.83).

The lowest scores comprising the quality of life infrastructure belong to the indicators

comprising housing infrastructure. The score for housing quantity in Indigenous communities is

0.23. The situation is even worse for housing quality at 0.09. The picture is much less bleak in

remote non-Indigenous communities for housing quantity at 0.92 and somewhat less bleak for

housing quality at 0.69.

The index values can also be compared across the 10 jurisdictions represented in the

selection of the 236 communities in this report. The jurisdiction that has the highest index value,

meaning the smallest infrastructure deficit between Indigenous communities and cities in

southern Canada, was Saskatchewan at 0.58. Second was Yukon (0.56), followed by Alberta

(0.54), British Columbia (0.51), Manitoba (0.46), and Northwest Territories (0.45). The

jurisdiction with the lowest score was Nunavut at 0.30, followed by Newfoundland and Labrador

(0.32), Quebec (0.36), and Ontario (0.41).

This report represents a first attempt to construct an infrastructure index for remote

communities in Canada. It is a work in progress. The report has developed a composite

infrastructure index for 236 remote communities. Estimates or scores out of 1.0 are provided for

4

the overall infrastructure index, the economic and quality of life infrastructure sub-indexes, the

seven types or components of infrastructure and 13 infrastructure indicators by province and

territory, with disaggregation by Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, and by heritage

group. These results, over 3,000 community-indicator data points, are contained in a large Excel

file accompanying this report.

As this report is starting point for future work, an agenda of future work has been created

to allow for an expansion of this project. Understanding the limits of the data collected, the

agenda proposes a refinement of the 13 indicators and the scoring scheme to account for

additional information and more granular details rather than access to basic forms of

infrastructure (i.e. including seasonal road access, services provided by and quality of health

care, etc.). The agenda also proposes expanding the communities used to include non-Indigenous

communities in northern Quebec and northern Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as remote

communities on the BC coast and non-remote Indigenous communities. The agenda also

proposes a longitudinal study to ensure that the data is updated while tracking trends in

infrastructure changes. This study could include historical estimates. Finally, analytical work

could be done to better understand the infrastructure gaps between Indigenous and non-

Indigenous communities, with a focus on controlling for community size and other factors that

may in part or fully explain these gaps.

5


Communities1

Introduction

In order to produce a more complete picture of the Indigenous economy in Canada, there

is a need to develop tools and metrics to more accurately measure and understand the

infrastructure supporting the economic participation of Indigenous populations in Canada.

There is a broad consensus in both the theoretical and empirical literature that the

infrastructure endowment of a country or community represents a critical factor for sustainable

economic growth. The report Methodological Issues in the Construction of an Indigenous

Infrastructure Index produced by the Centre for the Study of Living Standards and delivered to

INAC in early January 2018 reviewed the relationship between infrastructure and economic

development in the context of Indigenous communities and concluded there was a s t rong

rationale for a focus on infrastructure in any benchmarking of Indigenous progress indicators.

Established in 1990, the National Aboriginal Economic Development Board (NAEDB) is

a Governor in Council appointed board mandated to provide advice and guidance to the federal

government on issues related to Indigenous economic development. The Aboriginal Economic

Benchmarking Report, published in 2012, was the first document to assemble a comprehensive

group of indicators and to establish benchmarks to measure the social and economic well-being

for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. In 2015, the NAEDB released the Aboriginal Economic

Progress Report, the first update to the Aboriginal Economic Benchmarking Report. The

NAEDB is committed to preparing a second Aboriginal Economic Progress Report to track and

assess advancements made in 2018 on closing the gaps. The NAEDB is considering the inclusion

of an Indigenous Infrastructure Index in that report.

Based on the methodology developed in the report Methodological Issues in the

Construction of an Indigenous Infrastructure Index, this report empirically develops an

1Contributions to this document were made by the following CSLS staff: James Ashwell, Nicole

Johnston, Myeonwan Kim, Sebastian Tansil and John Tsang under the supervision of CSLS Executive

Director Dr. Andrew Sharpe. The CSLS would like to thank Elizabeth Logue and Sandra Romain at

Indigenous Services Canada for comments on initial drafts of the report. This report was prepared in

Spring 2018 using the most recent publically available and was prepared for the National Indigenous

Economic Development Board to be referenced in the 2019 Indigenous Economic Progress Report. This

report is available online on the NAEDB website: http://www.naedb-cndea.com/wp-

content/uploads/2019/06/NIEDB-2019-Indigenous-Economic-Progress-Report.pdf. In August 2019, the

CSLS published a supplementary report titled “An Improved Connectivity Component for an

Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous Communities,” developing the indicator used to measure

broadband in this report.

Emails: [email protected], [email protected].

http://www.naedb-cndea.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/NIEDB-2019-Indigenous-Economic-Progress-Report.pdf

http://www.naedb-cndea.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/NIEDB-2019-Indigenous-Economic-Progress-Report.pdf

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

6

Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous Communities. The Index includes regional

disaggregation and disaggregation by heritage group. To allow comparability with similarly

situated non-Indigenous communities, the Index is also calculated for remote non-Indigenous

communities.

The report consists of three main sections. The first section will lay out the methodology

for the Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous Communities (IIRIC), including the

definition of Indigenous communities, types of infrastructure and infrastructure indicators,

geographical coverage, weighting schemes, and data sources. The second section will provide

the estimates of the index for the latest data for 236remote communities. The results will be first

examined at the national level for the overall index, sub-indices, and components and sub-

components with a focus on differences between remote Indigenous and non-Indigenous

communities and differences among heritage groups. The results will then be analyzed at the

level of the provinces and territories for the overall index and two sub-indices for economic and

quality of life infrastructure. The third and final section will conclude and outline avenues to

improve the Index.

Methodology

The following section will outline the methodology used in the creation of the

Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous Communities. The basic structure for the IIRIC was

first proposed in the report Methodological Issues in the Construction of an Indigenous

Infrastructure Index, delivered to INAC by the Centre for the Study of Living Standards in early

January 2018. That report included experimental estimates for such an index for the three

territories and Northern Quebec and Labrador based on information found in the 2014 NIEDB

report on Northern infrastructure. This report modifies those experimental estimates by

extending the geographical coverage to all remote Northern regions of Canada, by distinguishing

Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, by disaggregating Indigenous communities by

heritage groups, and by adding housing infrastructure to the types of infrastructure included and

water quality as a sub-category under water facilities.

Key Characteristics

The key characteristics of the index are as follows.

The basic unit for the index is the community in remote areas. Communities are

defined as either Indigenous (50 per cent or more of the population self-identifies

as Indigenous) or non-Indigenous. Indigenous communities can be disaggregated

into First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities. Community level data can then

be aggregated into sub-provincial/territorial data, provincial/territorial data or

national data for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities and

populations. Data can be aggregated on a community basis where each

community has equal weight or on a household or population weighted basis.

7

The index can be used both for comparisons across jurisdictions and Indigenous

heritage groups. Going forward, a time series for each community can be built to

track progress. It may also be possible to develop a historical series.

The index is based on data for 13 indicators for seven types of infrastructure and

can be aggregated to infrastructure indicators and infrastructure types primarily

related to economic development and indicators primarily related to quality of

life.

Methodology of selection of communities

Definition of Indigenous communities

For the purpose of this study, an Indigenous community is defined as a community in

which over 50% of the population has self-identified as Aboriginal in the 2016 Census. The term

Aboriginal encompasses Métis, First Nations and Inuk (Inuit) populations. The Indigenous

communities in the dataset have been further disaggregated into the heritage groups of Métis,

First Nations, and Inuit (Inuk) by determining the heritage group with the largest population in

each Indigenous community. The focus of the Index is to quantify any difference in

infrastructure between Indigenous and non-Indigenous remote communities in Canada’s North.

The unweighted average for the overall index value of Census Metropolitan Areas in

Canada is 0.97 (Table 1). Therefore, it will be relatively straightforward to make comparison of

the overall infrastructure gap between remote Indigenous communities and southern cities,

assuming that southern cities have an index score of close to 1. But it is also important to

compare infrastructure between remote Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous

communities. For these reasons, the index is also calculated for non-Indigenous communities in

the remote regions covered by the index.

8

Table 1: Economic and Quality of Life Infrastructure Sub-Indexes and Total Index for

Census Metropolitan Areas (unweighted)

Economic

Infrastructure Index

Quality of Life

Infrastructure Index Total Index

Halifax 1.00 1.00 1.00

Moncton 1.00 1.00 1.00

Saint John 0.96 1.00 0.98

Saguenay 1.00 0.96 0.98

Québec 1.00 1.00 1.00

Sherbrooke 0.83 0.96 0.90

Trois-Rivières 0.83 1.00 0.92

Montréal 1.00 1.00 1.00

Ottawa-Gatineau 1.00 1.00 1.00

Kingston 0.89 1.00 0.94

Peterborough 0.83 1.00 0.92

Oshawa 0.83 1.00 0.92

Toronto 1.00 0.96 0.98

Hamilton 1.00 1.00 1.00

St. Catharine’s-Niagara 0.89 1.00 0.94

Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo 1.00 1.00 1.00

Brantford 0.83 1.00 0.92

Guelph 0.83 1.00 0.92

London 1.00 1.00 1.00

Windsor 1.00 1.00 1.00

Barrie 0.83 1.00 0.92

Greater Sudbury 1.00 1.00 1.00

Thunder Bay 0.95 1.00 0.97

Winnipeg 1.00 0.96 0.98

Regina 1.00 0.96 0.98

Saskatoon 1.00 0.96 0.98

Calgary 1.00 1.00 1.00

Edmonton 1.00 1.00 1.00

Kelowna 1.00 0.96 0.98

Abbotsford-Mission 1.00 0.96 0.98

Vancouver 1.00 0.96 0.98

Victoria 1.00 0.92 0.96

Canada Average 0.95 0.99 0.97

9

Selection of communities and geographic coverage

Two separate methods were used for selecting the communities used in this report. First,

for the communities in the Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Quebec and Newfoundland

and Labrador, data was provided from a NIEDB report published in 2014 titled Study Addressing

the Infrastructure Needs of Northern Aboriginal Communities.2 This dataset included

information for 100 northern communities and 39 indicators, which represent 9 forms of

infrastructure. The 100 northern communities were allocated between the regions of the Yukon

(23), Northwest Territories (32), Nunavut (25), Quebec (23) and Newfoundland and Labrador

(5). Since this dataset included all of the major communities with accessible data in Canada’s

northern most regions, the list of communities provided by the NIEDB was used for the creation

of the Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous Communities. However, three of the

communities from this original dataset had to be removed, as information was not available for

all of the indicators included in the Index.

In order to include remote northern communities from other regions in Canada, a second

method of data selection was used to select communities in British Columbia, Alberta,

Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario. The objective of this data selection was to identify

northern remote Indigenous communities in each province. As such, a definition of what is

considered “northern” was needed. The considerations made while understanding what is

northern can be framed in the concept of Nordicity. Nordicity refers to our understanding of what

comprises the differences between Canada’s regions marked by latitude. While these differences

may be either perceived or real, they all contribute to Canada’s imaginary of the North.3

In the context of remoteness and infrastructure, the term “northern” can be considered

through variety of variables. The variables encompassed in this selection included physiographic,

climactic and geographic factors. However, exact indicators were created to be regionally

specific to each province in order to account for the vastness of Canada’s geography and the

regionally indicative signifiers of “northern.” It should also be noted that in the case that a

regional centre was located just outside of the region defined as “northern,” this community was

still included to offer important comparisons with the nearby Indigenous communities.

In British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the border for the

Circumpolar Region was used to define the northern region. This is the area north of

approximately 55 degrees latitude. This boundary was chosen because it is an international

standard of what constitutes “northern” while also being broad enough to include an adequate

sample of communities. In Saskatchewan, special attention was paid to communities identified as

“Northern Village” or “Northern Settlement” in the Census 2016. As permafrost is linked to a

variety of infrastructure challenges, the region considered northern in Manitoba was extended

slightly below the boundary of the Circumpolar Region to include areas outside of the region that

experience permafrost.

Only a small portion of Ontario is included in the Circumpolar Region, thus producing an

inadequate sample of communities. Therefore, the boundary of the Canadian Shield was adopted

2 http://www.naedb-cndea.com/reports/northern-infrastructure-report.pdf

3 http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/nordicity/

10

for the selection of communities in Ontario, with an emphasis on communities above the

permafrost line.

Within these boundaries, communities were chosen based off their latitude (selecting the

northernmost communities) and remoteness. The focus of the study is on remote communities

because the adequacy of infrastructure is much greater in non-remote communities, even in rural

areas of southern Canada. As can be seen in Table 1, the value of the index is near one for all

cities in southern Canada and averages 0.97 for the 32 identified Census Metropolitan Areas.

Certain communities were also excluded from the index as adequate publically accessible data

was not available.4

Table 2: Number of Communities by Jurisdiction and Heritage Group

Jurisdiction Total % Distribution

Non-

Indigenous Indigenous

First

Nations Métis Inuk

Alberta 41 17.4 12 29 22 7 0

British Columbia 11 4.7 3 8 8 0 0

Manitoba 28 11.9 4 24 24 0 0

Newfoundland

and Labrador 5 2.1 0 5 0 0 5

Nunavut 24 10.2 0 24 0 0 24

NWT 30 12.7 3 27 20 1 6

Ontario 31 13.1 4 27 27 0 0

Quebec5 23 9.7 0 23 9 0 14

Saskatchewan 28 11.9 1 27 18 9 0

Yukon 15 6.4 9 6 6 0 0

total 236 100.0 36 200 134 17 49

4 The communities with incomplete data sets that were excluded from the overall index and compilation

of this report are: Lower Post, BC (lack of information on sewage system); Buffalo Lake, AB (lack of

information on sewage system); Bushe River 207, AB (lack of information on sewage system); Child

Lake 164A, AB (lack of information on sewage and water distribution systems); South Indian Lake, MB

(lack of information on sewage and water distribution systems); York Landing, MB (lack of information

on sewage and water distribution systems); Abitibi 70, ON (lack of information on sewage and water

distribution systems); and Minaki, ON (lack of information on water distribution system). 5 The province of Quebec has been further disaggregated in the dataset to include specific data on

communities belonging to the Inuk region Nunavik (14 communities) and communities belonging to the

First Nations (Cree) region Eeyou-Istchee (9).

11

Table 3: Total Population by Jurisdiction and Heritage Group

Jurisdiction Total % Distribution

Non-


First

Nations Métis Inuk

Alberta 171,421 38.1 153,289 18,132 13,986 4,146 0

British

Columbia 36,701 8.1 34,836 1,865 1,865 0 0

Manitoba 61,376 13.6 31,294 30,082 30,082 0 0

Newfoundland

and Labrador 2,558 1.0 n/a 2,558 0 0 2,558

Nunavut 27,214 6.0 10,545 16,669 0 0 34,800

NWT 34,437 7.6 n/a 34,437 11,492 435 5,495

Ontario 27,602 6.1 10,933 16,669 16,669 0 0

Quebec6 30,329 6.7 n/a 30,329 17,141 0 13,188

Saskatchewan 27,723 6.3 1,402 26,321 19,043 7,278 0

Yukon 30,607 6.8 28,874 1,733 1,733 0 0

total 449,968 100.0 271,173 178,795 112,011 11,859 56,041

Using these boundaries, 31 communities in Ontario, 28 in Manitoba, 28 in Saskatchewan,

41 in Alberta, and 11 in British Columbia were selected, making a total of 139 additional

communities for a grand total of 236 (Table 2).

Coverage over time

The purpose of the Index is to compare the state of infrastructure in remote Indigenous

communities with that of non-Indigenous communities, both in southern Canada and remote, and

to use these community estimates of the Index as a benchmark to monitor progress in closing the

Indigenous infrastructure gap. Thus, the indicators in the Index have been based on the most

currently available publically accessible data. At this stage of development of the Index, no time

series has been proposed, but this is a possibility for future stages.

6 The province of Quebec has been further disaggregated in the dataset to include specific data on



12

Table 4: Average Population by Jurisdiction and Heritage Group

Jurisdiction Total

Non-


First

Nations Métis Inuk

Alberta 4,181 12,774 625 636 592 n/a

British Columbia 3,336 11,612 233 233 n/a n/a

Manitoba 2,192 7,824 1,253 1,253 n/a n/a

Newfoundland and Labrador 512 n/a 512 n/a n/a n/a

Nunavut 907 n/a 695 n/a n/a 1,450

NWT 1,435 n/a 1,275 575 435 916

Ontario 890 2,733 617 617 n/a n/a

Quebec7 1,319 n/a 1,319 1,905 n/a 942

Saskatchewan 990 1,402 975 1,058 809 n/a

Yukon 2,040 3,208 289 289 n/a n/a

total 1,907 7,533 894 836 698 1,144

Constraints on Infrastructure Related to Community Size and Remoteness

The Index includes many small communities, which do not have hospitals or high

schools. One might argue that it is unfair to score these communities poorly because they lack

these types of infrastructure, as communities of similar size in southern Canada also do not have

such facilities. There is an element of truth in this, but it ignores the fact that in southern Canada

residents of small communities can drive to hospitals and high schools. In many cases, this is not

possible in remote communities.

Some may argue that because of the remoteness, it is unrealistic to expect that remote

communities would have comparable infrastructure facilities to southern Canada. For example,

the great distance between communities and the rough terrain make construction of year-round

roads very expensive, especially on a per capita basis given the small population. Again there is

an element of truth in this. Nevertheless, it is still instructive to know the size of the gap for these

types of infrastructure, especially transportation infrastructure between southern Canada and

more remote areas of the country.

The provision of certain types of infrastructure is a basic right of all communities in

Canada and constraints related to community size and remoteness, while a reality, must be

overcome. For example, all Canadians have a right to adequate housing, safe drinking water, and

access to the broadband.

7 The province of Quebec has been further disaggregated in the dataset to include specific data on



13

Several of the communities without certain types of infrastructure neighbor communities

that do have this infrastructure available. Specifically, it is common for a reserve to be located

near or border a non-Indigenous municipality with publically accessible infrastructure. However,

it is important to consider the value of having on-reserve services and infrastructure for those

who are unable or do not wish to travel to access services. Therefore, only services available

within the legal boundaries of each identified community are considered as on-site. However, if

services are located just off the legal reserve-land and are not a part of a bordering community

(i.e. clearly designated for the reserve), these services are considered on-site.

Methodology of creation of the Index

Selection of indicators

The methodology of the selection of each indicator has been further developed in the

report Methodological Issues in the Construction of an Indigenous Infrastructure Index, prepared

by the Centre for the Study of Living Standards (2018). On January 23, 2018, Indigenous

Services Canada released a backgrounder on reliable infrastructure.8 It noted the current

challenges facing First Nations for seven different types of infrastructure: housing, water and

wastewater, health facilities, roads, education facilities, energy systems, and broadband. The

Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous Communities thus includes all seven of these types

of infrastructure. These types of infrastructure have then been further aggregated to those

primarily related to economic development (broadband, transportation, and energy) and those

primarily related to quality of life (health facilities, education facilities, water facilities and

housing).

The index in this paper builds on work in the NIEDB report Study on Addressing the

Infrastructure Needs of Northern Aboriginal Communities9that provided information on the state

of 11 infrastructure indicators for 100 communities in the Yukon (15), Northwest Territories

(32), Nunavut (25), Nunavik/Eeyou-Istchee (23), and Nunatsiavut (5). All but one of the

infrastructure indicators from that study (solid waste management) are included in the

Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous Communities. More specifically, these indicators

have been created with the aid of the NIEDB report data set. This data set included 39 indicators,

which were further aggregated to establish 9 types of infrastructure. From this set of indicators,

the 11 infrastructure indicators used in the NIEDB report were used in the creation of the Index.

However, many of the response categories from the original NIEDB report were further

aggregated in order to create a dataset cohesive with the information available for the

supplementary communities, while ensuring that an inherent rank-order exist between response

categories. The response categories for broadband/telecommunication backbone facilities were

also further developed in order to reflect adequacy of broadband access at a more granular level.

These indicators, and the different categories of the state or condition of infrastructure, are:

Community access to telecommunications backbone facilities, categorized by insufficient

backbone infrastructure and insufficient last-mile infrastructure, insufficient backbone

8 https://www.canada.ca/en/indigenous-services-canada/news/2018/01/reliable_infrastructure.html

9 http://www.naedb-cndea.com/reports/northern-infrastructure-report.pdf

14

infrastructure or insufficient last-mile infrastructure, or sufficient backbone and last-mile

infrastructure;

Road infrastructure, categorized by access to the Canadian National Roads Network or

local roads only;

Access to water transportation in coastal communities directly adjacent to an ocean, bay

or inlet,10

categorized by a deep water port with supportive infrastructure, a harbour or

shallow water port with limited supporting infrastructure, or no port or harbour in the

community;

Air transportation infrastructure, categorized by no airport, scheduled flights to other

local airports or a regional air transit hub, scheduled flights to cities outside of the region

with or without local flights, or a large national or international airport;

Primary sources of community energy, categorized by diesel generated local power or

connection to the North American power grid;

Community access to health care facilities, categorized by hospital on site, Community

Health Centre (CHC) on-site, or no hospital and CHC on-site;

Community access to secondary school facilities, categorized by high school available in

the community (K-11/12), either junior school (K-6) or up to middle school available in

the community (K-9), or no high school available in the community;

Community access to college facilities, categorized by no facilities on-site, Community

Learning Centres (access to virtual campus and distance learning), or physical college

campus on-site;

Drinking water distribution, categorized by trucked water distribution or piped water

distribution;

Wastewater/sewage treatment, categorized by sewage treatment via sewage treatment

plant, limited treatment via lagoon or wetland, or no sewage/wastewater treatment and

raw discharge into a water body.

The Index adds three additional indicators to the set of indicators found in the 2014

NIEBD report, two related to housing and one related to water quality. The first is the quality of

housing as represented by the proportion of the population living in housing facilities that require

10

A value of n/a (not applicable) was given to communities not adjacent to an ocean, bay or ocean inlet.

This value was then excluded from the calculation of the overall index (i.e. the transportation sub-

component of roads and airports each received a weighting of 1/2 and water transportation was not used

in the calculation of the Index).

15

a certain threshold of major repairs. The second is the proportion of housing defined as

overcrowded, as measured by having more than one person per room. Unlike the other

indicators, which are discrete, the data for the two housing indicators are continuous. They can

be made discrete by defining a threshold for the adequacy of housing quality and quantity,

related to the national average.

Quality of housing infrastructure categorized by the state of repair of the housing stock. A

community is defined as having an adequate quality of housing when the proportion of

population living in housing requiring major repairs is at or below 150 per cent of the

national average, as inadequate when the proportion is between 151 and 250 per cent of

the national average, as very inadequate when the proportion is between 251 and 350 per

cent and as extremely inadequate when the proportion exceeds 351 per cent of the

national average. The national average for housing needing major repairs in 2016 was 6.5

per cent of the population.

Quantity of housing infrastructure is categorized by the state of overcrowding. A

community is defined to have an adequate quantity of housing when the proportion of

households with more than one person per room is at or below 150 per cent of the

national average, as inadequate when the proportion is between 151 and 250 per cent of

the national average, as very inadequate between 251 and 350 per cent of the national

average, and as extremely inadequate when the proportion exceeds 351 per cent of the

national average. The national average for overcrowding in 2016 was 1.9 per cent.

The third additional indicator is water quality, which is categorized by no drinking water

advisory, a boil water advisory, or a do not consume warning.

Allocation of values

The infrastructure index for each community is estimated by allocating scores to the

status or condition of the community infrastructure for the different infrastructure indicators and

then averaging these scores for the community. The top score (1) goes to the highest quality

infrastructure. Scores less than one are allocated to communities not having the highest quality

infrastructure based on the number of discrete categories. When there are two categories, scores

of 1 and 0 are allocated, for three categories 1, 0.5 and 0, and for four categories 1, 0.67, 0.33,

and 0. The enumeration of the discrete categories for the state or condition of the infrastructure

for each indicator for scoring purposing is provided below (Exhibit 1).

16

Exhibit 1: Index Values and Definitions

Infrastructure

Indicator

Number of

Categories

Possible

Scores

Definitions of Scores

Economic Infrastructure

Broadband 3 0.00 inadequate backbone infrastructure (lacks 1Gbps

backbone access within 2 km of the community)

and inadequate last-mile infrastructure (no

households with 5/1 Mbps internet speeds from

terrestrial infrastructure)

0.50 inadequate backbone infrastructure (lacks 1Gbps


or inadequate last-mile infrastructure (no

households with 5/1 Mbps internet speeds from

terrestrial infrastructure)

1.00 adequate backbone infrastructure (1Gbps


and adequate last-mile infrastructure (5/1 Mbps

internet speeds from terrestrial infrastructure)

Transportation - - -

Road 2 0.00 local roads only

1.00 connected to the Canadian National Roads

Network

Air 4 0.00 no airport

0.33 scheduled flights to other local airports and/or an

air transit hub

0.67 scheduled flights to cities outside the region and/or

an airport which is an air transit hub with flights to

outside the region as well as local flights

1.00 a large international airport

Water 3 0.00 indicates no port or harbour in a coastal

community

0.50 indicates a harbour or shallow water port with

limited supporting infrastructure in a coastal

community

1.00 indicates a deep water port with supporting

infrastructure in a coastal community

Energy 2 0.00 diesel generated local power

1.00 power supplied through the grid

17

Quality of Life Infrastructure

Health care 3 0.00 no hospital or community health centre (or

equivalent service) on-site

0.50 community health centre or equivalent service on-

site

1.00 hospital on-site

Education - - -

School 3 0.00 no school in the community, students bussed to a

nearby location

0.50 junior school only available in the community (K-

6), or indicates up to middle school available in

the community (K-9)

1.00 high school available in the community (K-11/12)

College 3 0.00 no community college campus in the community

0.50 satellite video conferencing availability to the

college campus at another location

1.00 a community college campus in the community

Water - - -

Treatment 3 0.00 no sewage/wastewater treatment and raw

discharge into a water body

0.50 limited treatment via sewage lagoon or wetland

1.00 sewage treatment via sewage treatment plant

Distribution 2 0.00 fresh water is trucked to buildings individually

1.00 water is supplied on a central system

Quality 3 0.00 do not consume

0.50 boil water advisory

1.00 no water advisory

Housing - - -

Quantity 4 0.00 extremely inadequate; 6.66% or more houses have

more than one person per room

0.33 very inadequate; 4.76-6.65% houses have more

than one person per room

0.67 inadequate; 2.86-4.75% houses have more than

one person per room

1.00 adequate; 2.85% or fewer houses have more than

one person per room

18

Quality 4 0.00 extremely inadequate; 22.76% or more houses in

need of major repair

0.33 very inadequate; 16.26-22.75% houses in need of

major repair

0.67 inadequate; 9.76%-16.25% houses in need of

major repair

1.00 adequate;9.75% or fewer houses in need of major

repair

Weighting of indicators

The basic Index can be broken down into four levels. The highest three levels of

infrastructure in the Index have been termed: the Overall Index, the sub-indices (Economic

Infrastructure and Quality of Life Infrastructure), and the components (broadband,

transportation, energy, health care, education, water, and housing). In order to develop

components indicative of the real state of community infrastructure, several of these components

were further disaggregated to create sub-components. Specifically, these are: transportation

(comprised of roads, air transportation and water transportation), education (comprised of school

and college), and water (comprised of treatment, distribution, and quality). Within each

component, each sub-component is equally weighted. Similarly, each component is equally

weighted within its respective sub-index. The sub-indices are then equally weighted. This

weighting scheme was created to ensure that each of the two main categories of infrastructure

(Economic Infrastructure and Quality of Life Infrastructure) would receive equal weighting.

Similarly, certain components include disaggregated sub-components to ensure the integrity of

equal weighting between forms of infrastructure within the index.

Formula

The formula for the index constitutes an arithmetic mean, wherein the value of 1

represents the highest value that can be ascribed to a community. An arithmetic mean is

calculated by adding each of the values and dividing this sum by the total number of values, thus

giving the ‘average’ value of any case. Conversely, a geometric mean is defined as the nth

root of

a set of n numbers, thus ensuring that there is not linear substitutability between factors, while

also equalizing the weighting. While a geometric mean was considered in order to account for

principles of substitutability wherein no form of infrastructure can fully substitute another, this

created a formula too sensitive to values of zero, a common value in many of the components of

this Index. An arithmetic mean was instead chosen to provide an accurate and balanced overview

of the amount of infrastructure present in each community and certain measures (i.e. aggregating

sub-components and components) were used to ensure equal weighting between types of

infrastructure. The formula can be written as follows:

19

Exhibit 2: Equation for Calculating the Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous

Communities, Calculated at the Sub-Index Level

This equation can be further simplified by defining each type of infrastructure by its

components.


Communities, Calculated at the Component Level

A more complex version of this formula can be created by defining each of the

components by their subcomponents.


Communities

20

Level 1:

Overall Index

Level 2:

Sub-Indices

Level 3:

Components

Overall Index

Economic Index

Broadband Energy Transportation

Roads

Water Transportation

Air Transportation

Quality of Life Index

Health Care Education

School

College

Water

Sewage Treatment

Water Distribution

Water Quality

Housing

Housing Quanity

Housing Quality

The following diagram includes a visual representation of the logic of this formula.

Figure 1: Diagrammatic Representation of the Infrastructure Index for Remote Indigenous

Communities

Weighted averages

There are several considerations that must be made before determining the weighting

scheme for the creation of population averages. The first option considered is unweighted data

that gives an equal weight to each community. The second option is population weighted data,

which assigns a larger value to those communities with larger populations. In using unweighted

data, certain individuals are inherently more influential in the overall index, due to their

residence in a smaller community. Thus, an average weighted by population may be more

appropriate to assign equal influence over the overall index to all members of the population.

However, these weights allow very large communities to heavily influence the average index

values. Often, larger communities have more infrastructure, meaning that weighting the data by

population can create higher average scores. This report includes both weighted and unweighted

data. However, unweighted data is used more frequently as it gives a more accurate depiction of

the situation in the average community.

Level 4:

Sub-Components

21

Exhibit 5: Formulae Used to Calculate Index Averages

of community as a share of total

population

the unit of analysis

Data Sources

Data collection methods

The data used to create this index was gathered from a variety of federal, provincial and

local sources. As the nature of this data was primarily qualitative, a quantifiable coding system

was created to rank the response categories within each indicator. This coding system was then

organized hierarchically to establish a rank order and transformed into the values ranging from 0-

1 that comprise the overall index (see Exhibit 1).

Data sources

All data was retrieved from publically accessible, open-source documents. As previously

stated, all of the values excluding those for water quality and housing for the Yukon, Northwest

Territories, Nunavut, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Quebec were sourced from the report

Study on Addressing the Infrastructure Needs of Northern Aboriginal Communities developed

for the National Aboriginal Economic Development Board by Centre for the North at the

Conference Board of Canada. However, this data was then verified using the methodology

created to research the supplementary regions, when possible. In all cases, the newest data was

used and in cases of discrepancy between the NAEDB dataset at the data identified by CSLS,

corroborating sources were consulted before making changes to the dataset. The data for housing

was retrieved using the methodology to be described below under “Housing Quantity and

Quality.”

The following data sources and methodology were used to obtain the data required to

create the Index.

Broadband: The Government of Canada online database for Areas eligible for funding to

enhance broadband access11

was consulted for each community. The online database

measures eligibility for funding to increase backbone and last mile infrastructure. The

eligibility standards were used to categorize and code the standards for adequate and

11

www.ic.gc.ca/app/sitt/ibw/hm.html?lang=eng

22

inadequate broadband infrastructure. Each individual community’s eligibility for funding

to increase each type of broadband infrastructure was consulted and coded.

Roads: To evaluate a community’s access to the Canadian National Roads Network,

Google Maps12

was used. Instances where the community has a road leading to another

community, but does not connect to the Canadian National Roads Network were marked

as having local roads only. Similarly, Google Maps does generally does not include ice

roads or seasonal roads. Therefore, only year-round road access was evaluated.

Water Transportation: Access to water transportation was evaluated in a two-step

process. First, Google Maps13

was used to evaluate the community’s proximity to an

ocean, bay or inlet. If the community was not determined to be coastal, it was given a

value of “n/a” and this value was not included in the calculation of the index. For

communities deemed to be coastal, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada List

of Harbours and Harbour Authorities14

was consulted.

Air Transportation: No comprehensive federal source was found to indicate the flight

destinations of each airport. Therefore, a two-step process was developed. First, the

Canada Flight Supplement15

as published by NAV Canada was consulted to identify

communities with on-site aerodromes. A search engine was then used to locate the

website of each aerodrome and the information on these websites was used to classify

each airport into one of the categories outlined in Exhibit 1. Only those aerodromes with

regularly scheduled passenger flights were categorized because private flights and

chartered flights are not reliable or accessible sources of transportation for much of the

population.

Energy: The document Status of Remote/Off-Grid Communities in Canada16

published by

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and Natural Resources Canada

was consulted in the evaluation of energy in remote communities. For those communities

identified as off the grid, open source research of news sources was done to account for

any changes since the document’s 2011 publishing date.

Health Care: As health care is a provincially administered service, no comprehensive

federal sources were found. Research was conducted through the use of provincial

databases on health care services found online through each province’s respective health

authority. As not every province uses the term “Community Health Centre” as was used

12

https://www.google.ca/maps 13

https://www.google.ca/maps 14

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sch-ppb/list-liste/harbour-list-liste-port-eng.html 15

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sch-ppb/list-liste/harbour-list-liste-port-eng.html 16

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/canmetenergy/files/pubs/2013-118_en.pdf

23

in the NAEDB report, this definition was extended to include all health centres

administering services equivalent to or in a similar nature to a Community Health Centre.

School and College: As education is a provincially administered service, no federal

database was found to indicate the presence of primary, secondary and post-secondary

schools in each community. Instead, the Ministry of Education responsible for each

province was consulted. Each province provided a list of primary and secondary schools,

which was then consulted in relation to each community. Similarly, provincial lists of

community colleges were also available. To locate all campuses and satellite campuses of

each college, the specific college websites were consulted.

Water Treatment and Distribution: To evaluate water and wastewater systems, the

“Regional Roll-Up Reports” included in the National Assessment of First Nations Water

and Wastewater Systems17

published by Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada were

consulted. For those communities not included in the document, municipal websites and

other local, open-source data products were consulted.

Water Quality18

: To evaluate Water Quality, the regularly updated independent media

source WaterToday19

was consulted. Only those water advisories currently in place at

time of consultation and affecting a substantial proportion of the community (i.e. does not

include campgrounds, isolated fishing lodges, etc.) were included.

Housing Quantity and Quality: As previously mentioned, the indicators for Housing

Quantity and Housing Quality were developed using national averages and data retrieved

from the Census 2016, published by Statistics Canada. Specifically, the Census Profile20

for each community was consulted and all proportions were calculated as a measure of all

respondents in the category of interest from the total respondents to the census question

of interest. To calculate Housing Quantity, the variable “Private households by number of

persons per room” was used to calculate the proportion of respondent households with

more than one person per room. Similarly, Housing Quality was measured using the

variable “Occupied private dwellings by dwelling condition” to calculate the proportion

of respondent households responding that their home is in need of major repairs.

17

https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1313426883501/1313426958782 18

Although the frequency of boil water advisories included in the index may be contrary to patterns and

statistics included in media reports, it must be remembered that the communities included in this index

are in a very specific geographic area. This region is seemingly less prone to drinking water advisories

and is not indicative of patterns of the frequency of drinking water advisories in all of Canada. 19

www.watertoday.ca 20

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E

24

Analysis of the Estimates of the Infrastructure Index for Indigenous

Communities

This section of the report will provide a detailed analysis of the estimates. The focus will

be on the gap between the infrastructure in remote Indigenous communities and that in southern

Canada, the benchmark, for the overall infrastructure index, the seven types of infrastructure, and

the 13 infrastructure indicators. Therefore, the difference between the 0.97 average index value

the Census Metropolitan Areas and the northern remote communities will be analyzed to

determine the infrastructure gap in Canada. Comparisons will also be made between territories

and provinces, between Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous communities in remote

areas, for the overall infrastructure index, the seven types of infrastructure, and the 13

infrastructure indicators.

This project has generated estimates of an Infrastructure index for 236 remote

communities (200 Indigenous and 36 non-Indigenous) in 10 jurisdictions (7 provinces and 3

territories) based on 13 separate infrastructure indicators, a total of 3,068 data points. Tables 1-

10 in Appendix 1 provide the estimates for all 13 indicators for the 10 jurisdictions as well as

aggregates for economic infrastructure and social infrastructure.21

It is beyond the scope of this

report to provide a detailed discussion of the results for all indicators for all provinces and

territories. This section of the report will provide an analysis of the results at the national level

and highlight the differences between provinces and territories and between Indigenous and non-

Indigenous communities as well as within heritage groups.

The results are very sensitive to the weighting scheme. Weighting for the calculation of

the Infrastructure Index for a jurisdiction can be done on a community basis (each community

receiving equal weight), which reduces the importance of large communities and increases the

importance of small communities or population basis (each person receives equal weight within

a jurisdiction), which increases the importance of the large communities and reduces the

importance of small communities).

21

In addition, Appendix I provides data on each individual community. The Appendix is available at:

http://www.csls.ca/reports/csls2019-04-data.xlsx.

http://www.csls.ca/reports/csls2019-04-data.xlsx

25

Aggregate Results

Results for Canada

Overall Index

Table 5: Overall Infrastructure Index for Remote Communities in Canada, 2018

Unweighted Population Weighted

All Communities (100%) 0.51 0.76

Indigenous Communities (39.7%) 0.45 0.47

First Nations (25.2%) 0.48 0.51

Métis (2.6%) 0.64 0.67

Inuit (12.0%) 0.31 0.35

Non-Indigenous Communities (60.3%) 0.82 0.94

For the 236 communities that have been defined as remote for the purpose of this report

the average infrastructure index in 2018 (or the latest data available) was 0.51 on a scale from 0

to 1 on an unweighted basis and 0.76 on a population-weighted basis (Table 5). This all-remote-

communities infrastructure index value is not particularly useful as it masks significant

differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities and is sensitive to the

definition of remote communities, which is particularly important for the inclusion or exclusion

of large remote non-Indigenous communities such as Fort McMurray and Grand Prairie. This

value is also not representative of all northern remote communities as this data is unweighted and

there are more Indigenous communities in the dataset than non-Indigenous communities, thus

giving greater influence over the index value to Indigenous communities.

Consequently, the report will largely focus on the index values for Indigenous

communities, which represent 200 of the 236 (84.7 per cent) communities defined as remote

(although only 39.7 per cent of the population defined as remote22

), with comparisons where

appropriate to non-Indigenous communities. As there are not large population differences

between remote Indigenous communities (unlike remote non-Indigenous communities), the

differences between population weighted and unweighted index values are small. To reduce the

quantity of numbers in the report, the discussion will focus on the unweighted average where

communities are not weighted by their population.

As noted, there were significant differences in the infrastructure index between

Indigenous remote communities and non-Indigenous remote communities. On an unweighted

basis the index value for Indigenous communities was 0.37 points lower than for non-Indigenous

communities (0.45 versus 0.82). The gap was even greater on a population-weighted basis, 0.47

points (0.47 versus 0.94).

22

This calculation was made using the populations of the 236 communities identified in this report. The

proportion of the remote population defined as Indigenous has been calculated as the share of the

population living in communities defined as Indigenous from the total population of all communities in

the report.

26

The average size of a remote Indigenous community in our data set at only 899 is much

less than in a remote non-Indigenous community, at 7,903. This size difference explains some of

the difference in index values. Certain types of infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals,

require a minimum community size to be cost effective. Consequently, such infrastructure is not

found in small communities, whether Indigenous or non-Indigenous, remote or non-remote.

Indeed, the unweighted score of the 11 remote non-Indigenous remote communities with a

population under 1,000 (seven of which are in Yukon) was 0.68, closer to the average for

Indigenous communities of the same size (0.44). Although the gap between Indigenous and non-

Indigenous of this size and remoteness is smaller than the overall infrastructure gap, it still

clearly exists in all provinces and territories included in this study (Table 6). Much of this

difference was due to the higher quality of housing in small remote non-Indigenous communities

compared to that in Indigenous communities.

Table 6: Infrastructure Index for Remote Communities (population under 1000) by

Province and Territory (unweighted)

Indigenous Non-Indigenous Total

British Columbia 0.51 n/a 0.51

Alberta 0.55 0.81 0.58

Saskatchewan 0.54 n/a 0.54

Manitoba 0.46 n/a 0.46

Ontario 0.40 0.68 0.41

Quebec 0.33 n/a 0.33

Newfoundland and Labrador 0.33 n/a 0.33

Yukon 0.56 0.64 0.60

Northwest Territories 0.40 0.57 0.41

Nunavut 0.29 n/a 0.29

Canada 0.44 0.68 0.46

The value of the infrastructure index varies by heritage groups. The 17 Métis

communities in the dataset of remote communities had an unweighted index value of 0.64, the

highest, followed by the 134 First Nations communities at 0.48 and then the 49 Inuit

communities at 0.31.

Sub-Indexes for Economic and Quality of Life Infrastructure

Table 7: Economic and Quality of Life Infrastructure Sub-Indexes for Indigenous and

Non-Indigenous Remote Communities (unweighted by population)

Economic Infrastructure Quality of Life Infrastructure

Indigenous Communities 0.48 0.42

First Nations 0.56 0.39

Métis 0.78 0.50

Inuit 0.14 0.48

Non-Indigenous Communities 0.81 0.83

27

As was discussed in the methodology section, the 13 indicators in the Infrastructure Index

are first aggregated into economic and quality of life infrastructure before the final aggregation

into the overall index. This section looks at the index values for these two types of infrastructure.

The economic infrastructure sub-index consists of three components or types of

infrastructure: broadband, energy, and transportation, with the latter divided into three sub-

components: roads, water, and airports. The quality of life infrastructure sub-index consists of

our components: health care, education, water, and housing.

The unweighted value for the economic infrastructure sub-index for Indigenous

communities is 0.48. Two observations are germane here. First, this value is well below that for

non-Indigenous communities at 0.81. Second, this index value is not far above the value for the

quality of life infrastructure at 0.42.

Similarly, the index value for the non-Indigenous quality of life infrastructure is very

close to that for economic infrastructure (0.81 versus 0.83). Thus, there is a very large gap

between the index value for quality of life infrastructure between Indigenous and non-Indigenous

communities: 0.42 versus 0.83. However, the patterns demonstrated at the aggregate level of

Indigenous and non-Indigenous are misleading as to the relationship between economic

infrastructure and quality of life infrastructure at the level of heritage groups.

Among the heritage groups there are significant differences in values for the economic

infrastructure sub-index, much less for quality of life infrastructure. The index value for

economic infrastructure for Métis was 0.78, only 0.03 index point below the remote non-

Indigenous communities. Conversely, the economic index value for Inuit was 0.14. For quality

of life infrastructure, the Métis had the highest index value (0.50), followed by the Inuit with the

next highest index value (0.48) and the First Nations communities had the lowest index score

(0.39). It should be noted that all of these scores are well below that of remote non-Indigenous

communities (0.83). It should also be noted that the First Nations and Métis communities have

higher average index scores for economic infrastructure than quality of life infrastructure,

whereas the Inuit score 0.34 points higher for quality of life infrastructure than they do for

economic infrastructure. The reasons for this discrepancy will be explored later in this paper. The

key takeaway is that remote First Nations communities experience the greatest quality of life

infrastructure deficit while the Inuit communities, all of which are remote, experience the

greatest economic infrastructure deficit.

Components of the Economic Infrastructure Sub-Index

The economic infrastructure sub-index consists of three components: broadband

transportation and energy (Table 8). The transportation component is in turn made up of sub-

components for road access, water access and air access.

The energy component of the economic infrastructure sub-index is the highest scoring on

average for remote northern Indigenous communities. The energy component of economic

infrastructure is defined as access to the North America power grid. Without this access

communities are forced to use generators to produce electricity. The value for this index for

28

remote Indigenous communities is 0.56, well below that for remote non-Indigenous communities

(0.86). However there are extreme differences in the index by heritage groups, from 1.00 for

Métis communities to 0.00 for Inuit communities. The lack of access to the North American

power grid in Nunavut reflects its remote location. The location of the vast majority of Métis

communities (16 out of 17) in the provinces, as opposed to the more remote territories, explains

the high value of the energy index for this group.

Access to adequate broadband also contributed to the infrastructure deficit across all

Indigenous communities. The Métis exhibit the smallest deficit, scoring 0.85, just 0.07 points

below non-Indigenous remote communities. The First Nations communities demonstrate a

sizeable deficit, scoring 0.59. The lowest scoring heritage group for this indicator is by far the

Inuit at 0.11. It is important to note the difference in scores between the three Indigenous groups

analyzed. Not only do Inuit communities face a large deficit when compared with remote non-

Indigenous communities (0.92), but there is also a clear deficit when comparing the gap between

Inuit access to and adequacy of broadband and that of Métis communities (0.85).

The transportation component of the economic infrastructure for remote indigenous

communities exhibits the greatest deficit at 0.39 among the three economic infrastructure

components, far lower than the index value for remote non-Indigenous communities (0.65).

Within heritage groups, Métis communities had the best transportation infrastructure at 0.50,

above Inuit communities, the lowest, at 0.32. Since the transportation component includes three

sub-components, analysis of these sub-components is needed to understand the differences at the

component level (Table 9). While these disparities are very large, non-Indigenous communities

face many of the same challenges with an index score of 0.65, which is notably below the

national benchmark.

The first sub-component of the transportation component is all-season access of the

community to the National Road Network. The index value for remote Indigenous communities

is 0.52, around one-half the value for remote non-Indigenous communities (0.97). There are

extremes in road access among the heritage groups, from 1.00 for Métis communities (higher,

even, than remote non-Indigenous communities) to 0.04 for Inuit communities, given the

absence of links to the national road system in Nunavut.

The second sub-component of the transportation component is access to water

transportation in coastal communities. Communities not on the coast are excluded from this

calculation. Since remote Métis communities and non-Indigenous communities are not on the

coast, there are no index values for these groups. The value for First Nations is 0.40 and for Inuit

0.51.

The third sub-component of the transportation component is airports, with communities

categorized by no airport, airport with local flights, airport with flights outside the region, and

airport with national and international flights. The value for Indigenous communities was 0.22,

below that of remote non-Indigenous communities (0.33). Much of this difference reflects the

much larger size of the latter category of communities. Within Indigenous communities, the Inuit

have by far the best access to air services (0.42), reflecting the lack of roads and hence necessity

29

for air transport. Métis communities have the worst air access (0.00), reflecting both their small

size and road access.

Table 8: Components of the Economic Infrastructure Sub-Index for Indigenous and Non-

Indigenous Remote Communities (unweighted by population)

Broadband Transportation Energy

Indigenous Communities 0.49 0.39 0.56

First Nations 0.59 0.40 0.70

Métis 0.85 0.50 1.00

Inuit 0.11 0.32 0.00

Non-Indigenous Communities 0.92 0.65 0.86

Table 9: Sub-Components for the Transportation Component of the Economic

Infrastructure Sub-Index for Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Remote Communities

(unweighted by population)

Roads Water Airports



Métis 1.00 n/a 0.00

Inuit 0.04 0.51 0.42

Non-Indigenous Communities 0.97 n/a 0.33

Components of the Quality of Life Infrastructure Sub-Index

The quality of life infrastructure sub-index consists of four components: health care,

education, water, and housing (Table 10). The latter three of these components are in turn made

up of sub-components or indicators.

In terms of the four components the quality of life infrastructure gap or deficit between

remote Indigenous communities and Canadian CMAs (index value around 1.0) the gap is the

least for water (an index value of 0.71), followed by education (0.44), health care (0.39),and

housing (0.16). This pattern is similar for the three heritage groups.

Heath care infrastructure

Health care infrastructure is captured by the availability in a community of a hospital or

Community Health Centre. The value of this indicator for remote Indigenous communities at

0.39 is less than one half that of remote non-Indigenous communities (0.83), largely reflecting

the much greater average community size for the latter. Inuit communities have a higher score

for health care facilities at 0.54 than either First Nations (0.34) or Métis (0.35). The isolation of

many Inuit settlements may make Community Health Centres more essential than in Métis and

First Nations communities with road access to larger centres with hospitals.

30

Table 10: Components of the Quality of Life Infrastructure Sub-Index for Indigenous and

Non-Indigenous Remote Communities (unweighted by population)

Heath Care Education Water Housing

Indigenous Communities 0.39 0.44 0.71 0.16

First Nations 0.34 0.35 0.75 0.15

Métis 0.35 0.47 0.82 0.33

Inuit 0.54 0.67 0.55 0.15

Non-Indigenous Communities 0.83 0.76 0.90 0.81

Table 11: Sub-Components for the Education Component of the Quality of Life



School College



Métis 0.68 0.26

Inuit 0.99 0.35


Education infrastructure

Education infrastructure is captured by the availability of schools (primary schools or

high schools) and community colleges (college facilities on site or access to virtual colleges and

distance learning). In terms of schools, the average score for remote Indigenous communities is

0.67 (Table 11), behind that for remote non-Indigenous communities (0.93). Inuit communities

have the highest score at 0.99, implying 48 of the 49 Inuit communities have high schools. Métis

communities scored 0.68, followed by First Nations communities at 0.55.

Not surprisingly, the presence of or access to communities colleges is limited in remote

communities, whether Indigenous or non-Indigenous. The score for Indigenous communities is

0.20; however, non-Indigenous communities still fare better with a score of 0.60. Among

Indigenous communities, Inuit have the highest score for community college access at 0.35,

followed by Métis (0.26) and First Nations (0.14).

Water Infrastructure

Water infrastructure is captured by water treatment facilities (full, limited, or no

treatment), water distribution (piped or trucked), and water quality (do not consume warning,

boil water advisory, or no advisory). The largest deficit in water infrastructure between

Indigenous communities and benchmark communities in southern Canada, which all score

around 1, is in water distribution, with the former at 0.57, followed by water treatment (0.61) and

water quality (0.94) (Table 12). Water treatment is a problem for some remote Non-Indigenous

communities (0.76). Among heritage groups, the Métis have the best water treatment facilities

(0.74), followed by First Nations (0.65) and Inuit (0.47).

31

Water distribution is not much of a problem for remote non-Indigenous communities,

with a score of 0.94. Among heritage groups, it is much more an issue for Inuit (0.21) than for

First Nations (0.68) and Métis (0.76). It should also be noted that the presence of permafrost

largely determines the method of water distribution used in northern communities where it is

often impractical to install pipes that either cannot be easily installed in the frozen ground or will

be highly susceptible to bursts caused by freezing water.

Water quality is not at all a problem for remote non-Indigenous communities, with a

score of 1.00. In First Nations and Métis communities, the score of 0.97 suggests that few

communities in this region have problem with water quality. The water quality situation is

slightly less positive in Inuit communities, with a score of 0.92.

Housing Infrastructure

Housing infrastructure has both a housing quality and housing quantity dimension.

Housing quality is captured by the state of repair of the housing stock. Housing quantity is

captured by the state of overcrowding, with overcrowding defined as more than one person per

room. Remote Indigenous communities have very large housing infrastructure gaps. The score

for housing quality is 0.23. The situation is even worse for housing quantity at 0.09. All

communities that are within 150 per cent of the national average score 1.0. The picture is much

less bleak in remote non-Indigenous communities for housing quality at 0.92 and somewhat less

bleak for housing quantity at 0.69.

In terms of the extent of need for major repair for housing infrastructure, Inuit

communities fare worst at 0.15, followed by First Nations (0.24) and Métis (0.45). In terms of

overcrowding, it is First Nations communities that do the worst at 0.05, followed by Inuit (0.15)

and Métis (0.22).

Table 12: Sub-Components for the Water Component of the Quality of Life Infrastructure

Sub-Index for Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Remote Communities (unweighted by

population)

Treatment Distribution Quality



Métis 0.74 0.76 0.97

Inuit 0.47 0.21 0.98

Non-Indigenous Communities 0.76 0.94 1.00

32

Table 13: Sub-Components for the Housing Component of the Quality of Life



In Need of Repair Crowding



Métis 0.45 0.22

Inuit 0.15 0.15


Results for the Provinces and Territories

Overall Index

Table 14 presents the scores for the infrastructure index for remote Indigenous and non-

Indigenous communities by province and territory. The jurisdiction that has the highest index

value for Indigenous communities, meaning the smallest infrastructure deficit between

Indigenous communities and cities in southern Canada, was Saskatchewan at 0.58. Second was

Yukon (0.56), followed by Alberta (0.54), British Columbia (0.51), and Manitoba (0.46).The

jurisdiction with the lowest score was Nunavut (0.30), followed by Newfoundland and Labrador

(0.32),Quebec (0.36), and Ontario (0.41).

It is telling to highlight the infrastructure gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous

communities in remote areas, although some of this gap reflects the larger size of non-

Indigenous communities. The largest gap in the infrastructure index is in British Columbia (0.44

points). By far the smallest gap was in Yukon, at only 0.15 points, but it should be noted that the

non-Indigenous communities in the Yukon fared worse than their counterparts in other

jurisdictions with a score of 0.71. It should also be noted that there were no non-Indigenous

communities included in the sample from Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nunavut.

Table 14: Infrastructure Index for Remote Communities by Province and Territory

(unweighted)

Indigenous Non-indigenous Gap

British Columbia 0.51 0.95 0.44

Alberta 0.54 0.89 0.35

Saskatchewan 0.58 0.83 0.25

Manitoba 0.46 0.87 0.41

Ontario 0.41 0.74 0.33

Quebec 0.36 n/a n/a

Newfoundland and Labrador 0.32 n/a n/a

Yukon 0.56 0.71 0.15

Northwest Territories 0.45 0.78 0.33

Nunavut 0.30 n/a n/a

Canada 0.45 0.82 0.37

33

Economic versus Quality of Life Infrastructure

Table 15 reports on the values for the economic and quality of life infrastructure sub-

indexes for remote Indigenous communities by province and territory. At the national level the

economic infrastructure score at 0.48 is above (0.06 points) the score for quality of life

infrastructure (0.42). The results for the jurisdictions vary greatly from the national average, both

in terms of the absolute scores and in terms of which sub-index has the highest score. Indeed,

unlike at the national level where the score for economic infrastructure exceeds that for quality

of life infrastructure, in five of the 10 jurisdictions, quality of life sub-index exceeds the

economic infrastructure sub-index, sometimes by a substantial amount.

The highest scores for economic infrastructure are in the four most western jurisdictions.

Saskatchewan is number one at 0.78, followed closely by Alberta at 0.75. The Yukon followed at

0.62 and British Columbia scored similarly at 0.58.The lowest score is in Nunavut at 0.11,

followed by Newfoundland and Labrador (0.16), and Quebec (0.31).

In terms of quality of life infrastructure, the highest score was in Yukon at 0.49. It should

be noted that the difference between this score and the national average was much less than the

difference between the highest score for a jurisdiction in economic infrastructure and the national

average (0.07 point versus 0.30 points). The three provinces that had the lowest scores were:

Alberta at 0.33, followed by Saskatchewan (0.37) and Quebec (0.42).

Given the high scores for economic infrastructure and the much lower scores for quality

of life infrastructure in western Canada, the gap between the two sub-indexes is very high in this

part of the country. Alberta has the largest gap between economic and quality of life

infrastructure at 0.42, followed by Saskatchewan at 0.41. While Alberta and Saskatchewan both

saw higher scores for economic infrastructure, Nunavut’s large gap was in the inverse direction

with quality of life scoring higher than the economic indicators. Many jurisdictions demonstrated

only marginal gaps; notably Manitoba (0.06), Ontario (-0.07), and Northwest Territories (-0.04)

all had very small gaps between the two sub-indices.

Table 15: Economic and Quality of Life Infrastructure Sub-Indexes for Remote Indigenous

Communities by Province and Territory (unweighted)

Economic (1) Quality of Life (2) Gap ((1)-(2)

British Columbia 0.58 0.44 0.14

Alberta 0.75 0.33 0.42

Saskatchewan 0.78 0.37 0.41

Manitoba 0.49 0.43 0.06

Ontario 0.38 0.45 -0.07

Quebec 0.31 0.42 -0.11

Newfoundland and Labrador 0.16 0.48 -0.32

Yukon 0.62 0.49 0.13

Northwest Territories 0.43 0.47 -0.04

Nunavut 0.11 0.48 -0.37

Canada 0.48 0.42 0.06

34

Conclusion and Future Work

This report represents a first attempt to construct an infrastructure index for remote

communities in Canada. It is a work in progress. The report has developed a composite

infrastructure index for 236 remote communities. Estimates or scores out of 1.0 are provided for

the overall infrastructure index, the economic and quality of life infrastructure sub-indexes, the

seven types or components of infrastructure and 13 infrastructure indicators by province and

territory, with disaggregation by Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, and by heritage

group. These results, over 3,000 community-indicator data points, are contained in a large Excel

file accompanying this report.

This concluding section highlights some of the key findings of the report and outlines a

number of long-term extensions to the infrastructure index that could be made.

Key Findings

The report has identified significant infrastructure gaps between remote Indigenous

communities and non-Indigenous communities. Major cities in Canada have an overall

infrastructure index value of around one, about double the value or score for Indigenous

communities (0.45). Remote non-Indigenous communities also have a much higher level of

infrastructure (0.82) than remote Indigenous communities do. A detailed examination of the

reasons for the differences in infrastructure deficiencies in remote communities is beyond the

scope of this report, as is a discussion of policies to reduce the infrastructure gap between remote

Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous communities.

Some of the most salient findings of the report are highlighted below.

Among the three heritage groups, the infrastructure gap is greatest for Inuit (0.31),

followed by First Nations (0.48) and Métis (0.64).

Métis have the best economic infrastructure (0.78), followed by First Nations (0.56), and

Inuit (0.14).

For quality of life infrastructure, Métis fare best (0.50), and First Nations the worst

(0.39), with Inuit in middle position (0.48).

Because of lack of access to both the national electricity grid, adequate broadband and

the national road system, Inuit communities are particularly disadvantaged in the sub-

index for economic infrastructure. It must also be noted that Inuit communities in

Nunavut, Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and the Northwest Territories all lacked

these forms of infrastructure.

Among the seven types of infrastructure included in the infrastructure index, by far the

largest gap is for housing (index score of 0.16). This is true for First Nations (0.15) and

35

Métis (0.33), but Inuit fare worse in both broadband (0.11) and energy (0.00) than they

do in housing (0.15).

The infrastructure gap for remote Indigenous communities is, in general, smaller west of

the Ontario border. Saskatchewan has the lowest gap (index value of 0.58). Nunavut has

the largest gap (index value of 0.30)

There is also great variance in the gap between economic infrastructure and quality of life

infrastructure, with five of 10 jurisdictions scoring higher in economic infrastructure than

quality of life infrastructure.

The jurisdiction with the poorest quality of life infrastructure is Alberta and the

jurisdiction with the poorest economic infrastructure is Nunavut.

Future Work

This report was produced in a short time frame. Future versions of the report would

benefit from peer review by infrastructure experts in a number of areas. For example, can the

selection of the seven types of infrastructure and the 13 infrastructure indicators be improved

upon? Can scoring scheme for particular indicators incorporate additional information? For

example, can the road access indicators be improved by adding a category for seasonal road

access? Should the indicator for health better encompass services offered and quality of health

care? Are there data sources not used in the reports that would improve the quality of the

estimates?

Another concern is whether the coverage of remote communities is comprehensive

enough. We note that there are no non-Indigenous communities in Quebec and Newfoundland

and Labrador included in the report’s data set. In addition, remote communities on the BC coast

are excluded.

Infrastructure deficits are not just a problem for Indigenous communities in remote parts

of the country, but for many other Indigenous communities. To assess the extent of this

infrastructure gap for all Indigenous Canadians, it would be useful to also develop estimates of

the index for non-remote Indigenous communities.

The index captures the current infrastructure picture for remote Indigenous communities

in Canada. It would be useful to update the index on a regular basis (every year or two years) to

measure progress in reducing the Indigenous infrastructure gap. In addition it would be useful to

develop historical estimates of the index to see what progress has been made over time.

This report is largely descriptive in nature. More analytical work is needed to better

understand these infrastructure gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities (both

remote and non-remote). In particular the role of community size in explaining infrastructure

36

gaps needs further examination. Calculation of scores for all infrastructure variables by

community size would be a useful way to start such analysis.

august 2019 - csls.ca · sub-index, and equal weighting to the sub-indices comprising the overall...

Documents